Sunday, March 20, 2022

How Ben Sasse can actually help "Zelensky get more" weapons

 



https://youtu.be/Hls-T4w4k8M

I just send this email to Senator Ben Sasse, no-nonsense US Senator for Nebraska:

Ben Sasse is calling for more support for Ukraine's defense

I totally agree. The political impediment to providing more for Ukraine is Putin's repeated threat of the use of nuclear weapons. This threat has neutralized the West and rendered it impotent. If that threat could be eliminated then more military support could be provided to Ukraine, as Ben Sasse is calling for.

 Both Ukraine and China share borders with Russia. China has a very close relationship with Putin, and will game this conflict to China's advantage, meaning they will be of no help to Ukraine or the West. HOWEVER, China needs to be called out by the West and by Ukraine. Ben Sasse can lead that charge. No doubt, China has received assurances from Putin that Putin has no real plans to use nuclear weapons. 

Chairman Xi of China owes it to his people to share with them those assurances. otherwise he is putting his own citizens at risk.  China needs to be called out in a very PUBLIC way on Putin's threat of the use of nuclear weapons. If he does not, then China will be held responsible by the West should Putin resort to the use of nuclear weapons. China will OWN that outcome, as they are the only country with sway over Russia. 

This needs to happen ahead of the NATO meeting in Brussels on March 24, 2022. Once the threat of nuclear weapons has been taken off the table, then Russia will be in a MUCH weaker position, and politicians in the West will be less able to deny Ukraine the military support it needs to WIN this war. China will be in a corner, as they will be compelled to reveal what they know about whether Putin's threats are real or simply bluff, since the 1.5 billion Chinese people who share a border with Russia are very much at risk, since no nation can stand idly by while nuclear weapons are exchanged.

Saturday, March 19, 2022

Dear President Zelensky: Call out China





Putin's threats  about use of nuclear weapons, may be real or may be bluffing. 

Either way, these threats are having a dampening effect on the response of the West.

For example, would the West be more willing to respond to Ukraine's request for a no fly zone, were it not for fear of a nuclear response?

I believe it would. 

Putin's threats can be used against him to Ukraine's benefit, as follows:


China's Chairman Xi is the only person who can influence Putin, given their close relationship and shared global objectives.

China will play the events in Ukraine to their advantage, and can not be relied upon to do the right thing. China will draw things out, in the belief the West won't have staying power.

China needs to be put in an awkward position, in order to do the right thing.

Given Putin's many threats about the use of nuclear weapons, Chairman Xi would no doubt have sought out assurances from Putin that he has no plans to use nuclear weapons.

President Zelensky, along with other global leaders (Biden, Trudeau, etc.) should publicly call out China, and ask what assurances Chairman Xi received from Putin about his use of nuclear weapons.

To be effective and to put Xi in an awkward spot, this should be done in the name of the people of China.. 

The people of China need to hear from their dear leader whether such assurances have been received and whether Chairman Xi believes they can be relied on.

This would totally undermine Putin, both in the eyes of the world, but also in the eyes of  the people of Russia.

In addition, President Zelensky and other global leaders should publicly tell China that China and Chairman Xi will be held responsible by the world community, should Russia resort to the use of nuclear weapons.

China shouldn't think it can stand idly by, while Russia threatens the use of nuclear weapons, since their use would be as devastating for China, as it will be for those in the West and the rest of the world

Such an approach, would change the balance of play between Ukraine and Russia and will accelerate the resolution of this war at the negotiating table.

Wednesday, March 16, 2022

Today Putin announces a no fly zone over Russia


 
There's much discussion these days about no fly zones over Ukraine to thwart Russia's invasion.

Today Putin's announced his own no "fly" zone over Russia, in this public rant to the Russian oligarchs:

"Russian people will always be able to distinguish true patriots from traitors and just spit them out like a fly that accidentally flew into their mouth. Such a natural and necessary self-purification of the society will only strengthen our country."

This can only mean that the sanctions must be working!  Thanks Vlad for the update.

Monday, March 14, 2022

Only China can stop this Ukraine madness

 


It's to be expected that both China and Russia would deny Russia asked China for weapons to support its criminal invasion of Ukraine. Both have a deep vested interest in such denials, as such actions would make Putin look weak and Xi look complicit.

What can't be denied however, is that Putin has made numerous threats about the use of nuclear weapons, while at the same time weaponizing the nuclear power stations in Ukraine, including Chernobyl.

These threats, lessen the West's ability to end the war and the needless human suffering.

China needs to be put on formal notice by the West that China will own the outcome of any use of nuclear weapons by Russia., conventional or otherwise. China can't idly stand by thinking it will be an innocent bystander in such a global catastrophe.

The sooner that NATO, Joe Biden and every leader in the West calls China out on this, the sooner this atrocity will end.

Then we can get back to the regular business of trying Putin for war crimes at the Hague. Something that is long overdue.


Saturday, February 1, 2020

Profiles in Cowardice

A Dishonorable Senate

Republican legislators abdicated their duty by refusing to seek the truth.

  • Jan. 31, 2020
Alas, no one ever lost money betting on the cynicism of today’s congressional Republicans. On Friday evening, Republican senators voted in near lock step to block testimony from any new witnesses or the production of any new documents, a vote that was tantamount to an acquittal of the impeachment charges against President Trump. The move can only embolden the president to cheat in the 2020 election.

The vote also brings the nation face to face with the reality that the Senate has become nothing more than an arena for the most base and brutal — and stupid — power politics. Faced with credible evidence that a president was abusing his powers, it would not muster the institutional self-respect to even investigate.

The week began with such promise, or at least with the possibility the Senate might not abdicate its constitutional duty. Leaks from John Bolton’s forthcoming book about his time in the White House appeared to confirm the core of the impeachment case against Mr. Trump: his extortion of Ukraine by explicitly conditioning hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid on the announcement of investigations into his political rival.

For a moment, it seemed that enough Senate Republicans would come to their senses, listen to the overwhelming majority of Americans, and demand to hear testimony under oath from Mr. Bolton and maybe even other key witnesses to Mr. Trump’s Ukraine scheme.

How could senators cast such a consequential vote — how could they call what they were doing a trial — without hearing from the people with the most direct knowledge of the actions that led to impeachment? Every impeachment trial in American history had included witnesses.
Some Republicans made a show of concern before throwing up their hands. “I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate,” Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said on Friday in explaining her refusal to vote to hear from any witnesses. “I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed."

On the one hand, this statement was a suffocating tautology: Ms. Murkowski was saying that because the trial would be unfair, she would vote to prevent witnesses, ensuring that the trial would be unfair. On the other hand, her statement was such a searing indictment of the institution’s capacity to perform a critical constitutional function that one wonders how she can bear to work there.

In any case, Ms. Murkowski has it partly right. But it’s not Congress as an institution that has failed; it’s Senate Republicans. They didn’t refuse to hold a fair trial so much as they refused to hold any trial at all. Of course, Mitch McConnell, the majority leader for whom bipartisanship is a dirty word, had promised no less. He announced in December that he planned to work in complete coordination with the White House in protecting the president from any accountability, and that he had no intention of honoring the oath he would take to be an impartial juror.

The irony is stifling. For months, Mr. McConnell and other Republicans complained that the impeachment process was being rushed, that the president was being denied basic procedural protections, and that there was no testimony from those with the most direct knowledge of Mr. Trump’s actions and motivations. Then they refused to hear from a single witness and refused to demand a single document from the White House.
There’s an obvious explanation for this cover-up: With the exception of Mr. Bolton and a few other key figures, everyone who has provided incriminating evidence about Mr. Trump has done so in public and under oath; and everyone who he claims would exonerate him has either refused to testify or been blocked from testifying by Mr. Trump. Mr. McConnell, calculating that any testimony would be very bad for the president and thus for the Republicans’ Senate majority, persuaded his colleagues to take their lumps and vote no on witnesses.
The precedent this sets is alarming enough: the Senate abandoning its role as the ultimate guard against a dangerous president. Just as bad is the rationale on which most Republicans have settled for refusing to hear from witnesses — that whatever you think of Mr. Trump’s behavior, it wasn’t impeachable, and there is no evidence that could change their minds.
Given the seriousness of the charges against Mr. Trump, it’s hard to envision anything that this president could do that would require Republican senators to vote for his removal.
There is one apt criticism leveled by Republicans, even if they have made it in bad faith: Democrats in the House of Representatives moved too fast in the impeachment process, voting before they could hear from key witnesses like Mr. Bolton. They justified this by pointing to the urgency of the situation. Mr. Trump has accepted foreign assistance to win one election, has actively sought it out for another and has given no indication that he plans to stop doing so. He also pledged to stonewall any congressional inquiry into his behavior, which could have led to months or years of litigation over witnesses and documents.
But would that have been worse than where we are now? Had the House kept the impeachment inquiry open on the grounds that it could not vote until it had completed its investigation, the spotlight would have remained on Mr. Trump and his corrupt behavior. Evidence would have continued to come out, and the American people would get the fullest possible picture of the president’s behavior.
Instead, with the Senate’s blessing for his scheming to have Ukraine investigate the Bidens, Mr. Trump now poses an even greater threat to the next election.
Senate Republicans’ indifference to the overwhelming public support for calling witnesses was of a piece with the party’s minority politics. Its president lost the popular vote by three million votes. Its Senate majority represents 15 million fewer Americans than the Democrats’ minority. In states like North Carolina, it rigs the maps to turn popular-vote losses into legislative majorities, then strips power from duly elected Democratic leaders.

Thursday, April 4, 2019

Oath. What Oath?

I, Judy Wilson-Raybould, do solemnly and sincerely swear (declare) that I shall be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, as a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada. I will in all things to be treated, debated and resolved in Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity, or that shall be secretly treated of in Council. Generally, in all things I shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty.

Friday, March 18, 2016

It’s time to revisit income trusts while avoiding their worst excesses